ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 1287-1292, October 2019 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0910.04 Narrative Innovation in Dubliners and James Joyce’s Exilic Experience Chenglin Yu Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China Abstract—James Joyce’s Dubliners betrays a narrative innovative tendency towards the restriction of point of view, which means the narration tends to unfold through the character’s point of view without omniscient interference. After examining the short stories in the context of their creation, we assert that Joyce’s exile and Dubliners’s censorship mostly account for this formal innovation. Further exploration shows that the restriction of point of view is actually a narrative strategy Joyce deploys to convey his ambiguous and ambivalent feelings towards his homeland and compatriots triggered by his exilic experience. Index Terms—James Joyce, Dubliners, narrative, point of view, exile, censorship I. INTRODUCTION It is generally acknowledged among the Joyceans that free indirect discourse is a typical stylistic trait of Joyce’s works. To see this formal trait in terms of narrative, it can be perceived as a tendency of restriction of point of view in which the narrator gets rid of omniscient comments and judgements in the narration so that it is filtered through the character’s point of view. After a close examination of Joyce’s creation of Dubliners, we trace the origin of this narrative innovation in his revisions of this early work. The excavation of Dubliners’s creating process further reveals that Joyce’s exilic experience is responsible for this narrative innovation. So the key question is raised: How does Joyce’s exilic experience lead to his narrative innovation in Dubliners? Previous studies shed light on the question from various perspectives. Warren Beck in Joyce’s Dubliners: Substance, Vision, and Art (1969) holds that the main narrative traits of Dubliners such as the self-effacement of the narrator, open endings, epiphany, absence and ellipsis in narration, etc. are a result of Joyce’s ambivalent feelings of affection and aloofness towards his subject-matter. Beck’s approach and insight inspires us to probe the complexity of narrative point of view in Dubliners in connection with Joyce’s exilic experience. In “Nostalgia and Rancor in ‘Dubliners’” (2011) and James Joyce and the Exilic Imagination (2015), Michael Patrick Gillespie advocates examining the complex connotations of Joyce’s works in relation to his exile. Accordingly, he maintains that Joyce’s conflicting feelings of “nostalgia and rancor” towards his homeland caused by exile are implicated in his narrative. Gillespie doesn’t touch upon the exact narrative forms effected by the double feelings in this book. But his early monography Reading the Book of Himself: Narrative Strategies in the Works of James Joyce (1989) contributes great ideas. With free indirect discourse as the focus of research, Gillespie argues that this stylistic trait is originated from the censorship Dubliners suffered in its publication. As a narrative strategy, free indirect discourse has the effect of ambiguity and uncertainty which transfers the responsibility of interpretation to the reader. Although the relationship between Dubliners’s formal innovation and its censorship is not the main task of the research, it hints us, along with the above-mentioned works, to connect Dubliners’s narrative form with Joyce’s experience of exile and censorship. This paper is intended to explore in light of the texts of the short stories and Joyce’s biographical documents the following topics: 1. the creation and censorship of Dubliners; 2. the restriction of narrative point of view in revisions of Dubliners; 3. the relationship between Joyce’s exilic experience and the narrative innovation. II. CREATION AND CENSORSHIP OF DUBLINERS The writing of the short stories of Dubliners began in 1904 when Joyce wandered aimlessly at home after his mother’s death. His friend George Russell (AE), who sympathized with his plight and admired his talent, offered him the chance to write “a short story suitable for the Irish Homestead, something ‘simple, rural?, livemaking?, pathos? [pathetic]’ which would not shock his readers” (Ellmann, 1982, p. 163) to earn some money. Joyce accepted the offer and successively wrote “The Sisters,” “Eveline,” and “After the Race.” The editor published the three stories, but told Joyce not to submit any more since they had received many letters of complaint from the readers (Ellmann, 1982, p. 165). In fact, Irish Homestead is an agricultural newspaper, featuring stories of rural and local colors of the Irish west. The style of Joyce’s stories is an obvious discord. Actually, he had always despised the newspaper and was ashamed of publishing in “the pigs” paper (Ellmann, 1982, p. 164) for livelihood. From October 1904 when Joyce left Ireland to November 1905, Joyce completed 12 stories, compiled them into Dubliners, and sent it to the English publisher Grant Richards. In February 1906, Joyce sent an additional story “Two Gallants.” It was this story that incurred disaster and postponed the publication of Dubliners for eight years. When Joyce was ready to send “A Little Cloud” in April 1906, © 2019 ACADEMY PUBLICATION 1288 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES Richards told him the printer’s objection to “Two Gallants” and some other stories, asking for changes on the manuscript (Ellmann, 1982, pp. 219-220). Negotiations between Joyce and Richards via letters over disputes about the revision lasted until September, ending with Richards’s rejection of publishing (Ellmann, 1982, p. 231). Later, during 1906 and 1907, Joyce continued to compose the last story “The Dead” and finally contracted with the Dublin publishers Maunsel & Co. for Dubliners in 1909. Unfortunately, again, after prolonged negotiations and compromises, George Roberts of Maunsel & Co. decided not to publish Dubliners for reason of its anti-Irish implications (Ellmann, 1982, p. 330). But Roberts offered to sell Joyce the sheets. However, the printer John Falconer refused to give the unpatriotic sheets and destroyed them. Angered and agonized, Joyce left Ireland the same night and never came back again (Ellmann, 1982, pp. 335-337). Until 1914, Joyce got in touch with Grant Richards again who finally brought out Dubliners thanks to the loosened censorship. Many scholars unanimously believe that the bitter censorship Dubliners suffered to a great extent motivated Joyce to make self-conscious formal innovation in his repeated revisions of the stories. For example, Paul Vanderham in James Joyce and Censorship (1998) asserts that “censorship…was directly responsible for Joyce’s growing sense of exile” (Vanderham, 1998, p. 60), and “Joyce’s early conflicts with the censor engendered what may be described as the style of exile that Joyce began to develop early in 1907, shortly after Grant Richards refused to publish Dubliners (on 26 October 1906)” (Vanderham, 1998, p. 62). The “style of exile” in Vanderham’s words exactly refers to his artistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Similarly, Gillespie in Reading the Book of Himself also argues that Grant Richards’s censorship of Dubliners coincidentally occasioned Joyce’s formal innovation. The formal development referred to by Gillespie is the free indirect discourse. Joyce’s revisions of the texts suggest “that something beyond a desire to mollify his publisher motivated Joyce,” “while Richards’s censoriousness acted as an important goad for revision, it was Joyce’s own emerging artistic maturity that stood as the shaping force behind the changes” (Gillespie, 1989, p. 34). To make it brief, Joyce took the opportunity of revision in response to the censorship to develop his formal innovation. From Joyce’s negotiating letters with Richards, we know that Richards mainly censored three stories—“Two Gallants,” “Counterparts,” and “An Encounter” for their immoral contents and indecent language①. However, the major revisions Joyce made during that period were on the texts of “The Sisters,” “Eveline,” and “The Boarding House.”② This also indicates that censorship serves as a chance for Joyce’s formal innovation. If so, what is the deeper motivation for this self-conscious artistic development? To answer the question, we first need to anatomize the specific narrative innovation in Joyce’s many revisions of Dubliners. III. RESTRICTION OF NARRATIVE POINT OF VIEW IN REVISIONS OF DUBLINERS To probe Joyce’s narrative innovation in Dubliners, it’s vital to closely examine revisions in various versions of the texts from the first draft of the stories (1906) to the first edition of the book (1914). As is mentioned above, the texts of “The Sisters,” “Eveline,” and “The Boarding House” are the most revised. With these three stories as research object, we trace the details of different revisions and discover a significant innovative tendency towards the restriction of narrative point of view. After Richards rejected the publication of Dubliners, Joyce revised the text of “The Sisters” extensively (Scholes, 1964, p. 109). As a result, the final published version of “The Sisters” has varied greatly from the first Irish Homestead version③. According to Florence L. Walzl’s research, in the first version, the narration unfolds in a highly realistic manner. The description of facts and details is on the verge of verisimilitude. For example, Father Flynn’s “progression from childhood eccentricity to adult abnormality” is consistently and clearly explained so that no mystery, vagueness, or “gnomon” which characterize the later versions exist (Walzl, 2012-2013, p. 77). Although the boy is the narrator, his mind “tends to give a mirror reflection of the flat reality of Father Flynn’s life: the facts are as they are” (Walzl, 2012-2013, p. 87). The narrator also gives direct comments here and there. For instance, he feels that the priest “had an egoistic contempt for all women-folk, and suffered all their services to him in polite silence” (Walzl, 2012-2013, p.